Sunday, October 5, 2014

Reince Priebus on Republican Abortion Smoke and Mirrors...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth


Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus talking about abortion and why republicans are so inclined to support government regulation of women's reproductive rights, aka abortion clinics. Of course Priebus fell back on the age old argument that republicans are opposed to using taxpayer money to fund abortions.

If only that were the full truth. But it is isn't and Priebus and most of the rest of the nation knows it. The recent 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decision to allow Texas to move ahead with shutting down most of the abortion clinics in Texas is the driver of this exchange.

Truthfully, the reason republicans support regulation of clinics that provide abortions is because they want Roe -v- Wade overturned. Since this is, at least for now this is unlikely, republicans will find and support back door ways to curtail a women's reproductive rights. In this case by making it as inconvenient as possible for women, especially those with limited means.

CROOKS AND LIARS - NBC host Chuck Todd on Sunday pressed Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus about why his party opposed most regulations on business, except when it came to abortion clinics.

"One of the things is you don't like a lot of regulations on business," Todd noted during an interview on Meet the Press. "Except if the business is an abortion clinic."

The NBC host pointed out that 80 percent of the clinics in Texas could be forced to close because of a strict Republican-backed anti-abortion law.

"Too much regulation, is that fair?" Todd wondered. "Why regulate on the abortion issue now [instead of waiting until] you win a fight in the Supreme Court and ban abortion altogether? Why restrict a business now in Texas?"

"The fact of the matter is we believe that any woman that's faced with unplanned pregnancy deserves compassion, respect, counseling," Priebus replied.

"But 80 percent of those clinics are gone," Todd pressed. "So they have to drive for 2 or 300 miles. Is that compassion?"

Priebus, however, shot back that Republicans were most concerned with "whether you ought to use taxpayer money to fund abortion."

"I mean, that's the one issue that separates this conversation that we're having," he insisted, adding that the 2014 election would be decided on other issues.

"Obamacare, jobs, the economy, Keystone pipeline," Priebus opined. "So you can try to steer -- talk about abortion again, but the fact is of the matter is, if you're in Skagway, Alaska, you're thinking about the fact of why my life isn't better off today than it was when this senator was elected six years ago."

For the record Priebus got one thing right, the hard working American taxpayer should not have to pay for an abortion. Perhaps it makes more sense to subsidize effective birth control to prevent pregnancies that may ultimately result in a child being mistreated and or much greater cost to society in other ways.

Just food for thought.



Via: Memeorandum

16 comments:

  1. "the hard working American taxpayer should not have to pay for an abortion. Perhaps it makes more sense to subsidize effective birth control to prevent pregnancies that may ultimately result in a child being mistreated and or much greater cost to society in other ways."

    Agreement on both....

    ReplyDelete
  2. Reince (who would name a baby that?) is continuing to struggle with the ongoing GOP dilemma: keep the religious right and gain the vote of child bearing age women. Good luck with that.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Priebus is lying. Taxpayer money is NOT used to fund abortion. The Hyde Amendment prevents that. Although I do think the Hyde amendment (as well as any other laws that prohibit women from using their health care insurance to pay for ALL their health care issues) should be done away with. And Planned Parenthood (or any similar organization) should be able to use federal dollars to pay for abortions as well.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Of course you do, we all know that.

    Unless the women's health is in danger as a result of pregnancy it is not a health issue. It may be a financial issue, or a life style is but it is not a health issue.

    Hence, in consideration of the above, IMO it makes every bit of sense for private health insurance plans and ObamaCare to cover birth control for women. Call it preventing the greater cost of unwanted pregnancy.

    BTW, I've no issue with Roe -vs-Wade.

    That's all I have to say in response to your comment DS, take it or leave it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. If pregnancy is not a health issue, why are virtually all women under a doctor's care throught their pregnancy?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Pregnancy affects health. This is an undisputable fact.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jerry, allow me to rephrase. If a women is healthy, and the child is healthy, then the pregnancy is considered normal and without risk. Doctors monitor pregnancy through the time period until birth yes. I do not believe, in fact I know I did not make reference to the well care a women receives throughout her pregnancy.

    Abortion is about terminating a developing human. My point is when there is no health reason why the women or the developing child should not go to term the government should not assist in abortion funding in any way. I realize you can counter with an argument to even this. If you do I am prepared to address it if and when you do.

    I vote for education and birth control as a means to stop unwanted pregnancies before they happen. Government, preferably state, has a valid role in this IMO.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See, RN, this is why liberals say conservatives are waging a war on the poor. The people receiving government help with their healthcare are in the lower economic brackets. That's why they need help. Refusing to help a poor woman who wants to end her pregnancy (be it an "accidental" pregnancy or pregnancy due to the failure of birth control) simply takes money away from other necessities she needs if she gets the abortion, or forces her to have a child she neither wants nor can most likely afford.

      The additional child increases her dependence on government assistance, raising all our costs. It makes it even harder for her to get off government help. It is counterproductive. It increases government costs. It increases poverty. It makes the poor even more desperate.

      I agree we need more education and birth control. Preventing unwanted pregnancies before they happen is vastly preferable. But sh*t happens. Birth control fails. Abortion should be the last option available, but it should be available to everyone...especially poor people, not only those who don't qualify for government assistance.

      Delete
    2. I'm with Jerry on this. He nailed it.

      Delete
  8. We shall agree to partially agree and leave it at that DS.

    Jerry, thank you for your clarity. You bring up many of the points I pondered over several years before arriving at my position.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I've always wondered why it is called "birth control'. It is not birth control. It is pregnancy control and should be called pregnancy control.

    Not that it would probably change anything.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Actually fertilization control is closer to the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Jerry, I really think it is just a matter of semantics. Essentially it is controlling the birth rate, individially.

    And yes, it wouldn't change anything.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jerry, fertilizer control? Now that's a good one!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Nice Info! For women abortion is a very tough decision to take because they are not mentally and physically prepared for it.

    Online Pharmacy Store in USA | Mifeprex Buy Online

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.